The Servant Species: Humanity As Priesthood
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood The Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey Centre for the Study of Theology University of Essex, England after all. For example, few now share the conviction of Aquinas that only humans in creation are capable of rationality or intelligence in its broadest sense. Even fewer now share the enthusiasm of Descartes for the view that animals are automata, mechanisms utterly devoid of self-consciousness, and therefore incapable of feeling pain. An unmistakable sense of caution in this regard is registered by Robert Runcie, the Arch bishop of Canterbury, in a recent lecture. "[B]oth in theory and practice the boundaries of the human family are becoming unclear," he argues. Behind practical dilemmas, My suuting point is a question: In what way, if at all, are human beings unique in creation? In the past, there lies the theoretical difficulty of defining there have been almost too many answers to that question. what it is that decisively distinguishes the human A whole range of unique and crucial differences has from the non-human - a difficulty that been canvassed: humans alone have rationality, culture, increases as, for instance, naturalists detect in language; humans alone are persons, the possessors of non-human creatures subtleties ofbehaviour and an immortal soul; humans alone are self-conscious and complexities of communication which, until are solely capable of sentient existence. Humans alone recently, would have been thought unique and are capable ofpraising God and entering into relationship exclusive of humans.2 with the divine. There seems no end to the possibilities of uniqueness which humans can contemplate for Then there may be a question as to why humans find themselves when they compare themselves to other it necessary to place themselves in a distinct category species. The notion ofthe image ofGod has furthered an from animals. One of the conclusions of Desmond extensive uniqueness-searching anthropology which has Morris' popular book, ~ ~ Am;., which aroused dominated Christian tradition for centuries, irritating one most Christian commentators to complain, was his distinguished Hebrew scholar, James Barr, into denying that the notion ofthe image refers to anything tangible at all, referring to such attempts as "the blood-out-of-a-stone ", Andre. Linzey 1989 process."l There are atleast three reasons why theology should be suspicious of this uniqueness-spotting tendency. RELIGION The first and most obvious is that a good number of these differences have turned out to be not so unique Summer 1990 109 Between the Species The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood insistence that our desire to be placed above the animals The truth they strove to bring home was that was itself a sign of insecurity. "Unfortunately, because the world God has given to his creatures, the we are so powerful and so successful when compared one world which they have to share, is in fact a with other animals, we fmd the contemplation of our different world to.each one of them, but that the humble origins somehow offensive, so that Ido not expect world each creature knows is equally true. We to be thanked for what I have done," he wrote. human beings, superior as we are, ought to be very humble because other creatures have other Our climb to the top has been a get-rich-quick truths which we can only dimly grasp, worlds story, and, like all nouveaux riches, we are very we can never fully enter. sensitive about our background. We are also in constant danger of betraying it3 He concludes with this question: To these suspicions needs to beadded a third, namely And if this is so with regard to an ox or an ant, that the distinctions we have drawn have been frequently not to say a tree or a stone, how can we hope to and transparently self-serving, even selfish. Forexample, comprehend the God who comprehends them it seems to be altogether too convenient for Aristotle all, to whom all worlds and truths are fully to take simply one example - to suppose that since known because he made them? 7 "nature makes nothing without some end in view," it must follow that nature has made all animals "for the This interesting question leads me again to my sake of man.'''' It has been so easy to turn this appeal to starting point Let me now frame the question in this the purpose of nature, and in subsequent Christian way. Is it possible to have a theological understanding of centuries to "divine purpose," into a justification for humans as unique which avoids the suspicions and doing what we like to animals that we have come to dangers ofself-service, insecurity, and moral denigration suspect the opposite is the true sequence. Aquinas, of what is different - not to mention a view which following Aristotle, appeals both to the order of nature might broadly be reconcilable with empirical evidence? and also to divine providence to assure us that "it is not wrong for man to make use of them, either by killing or IT in any other way whatever."s The difference-finding tendency in Western tradition has undoubtedly served I begin this second section by laying some stress on to minimize the moral standing of nonhuman creatures this word "theological." For it seems that many of the and to enable us to exploit them with a clear conscience. previous claims for human uniqueness have been One cannot be but bemused by the reference in the essentially naturalistic rather than theological. I mean by marriage service ofthe Book QfCommon emm to ''brute this that they have appealed to certain abilities, qualities, beasts that hath no understanding," since some, perhaps or capacities, such as rationality, or power, or self many, higher mammals seem to know more about consciousness, which are taken as determinative of what monogamous relationships than at least some members is uniquely human. Such attempts I want to suggest are of homo sapiens.6 In short: much of our uniqueness not theological in the strict sense of being things which spotting within the Christian tradition has been linked are grounded in the nature of God itself. Despite the directly or indirectly to the fostering of a low view of traveller in Oudamovia's not wholly unjust complaint animality, the traces of which are still found in our that "our understanding of God is even less adequate language about "brutes", "beasts," and "bestial"; even than our understanding of the life of our cat"8, it is here the word "animal" has become a libel-and not just on that there may be a way forward. human beings. Ifwe take the gospel narratives seriously, it may be In a little but significantbook oftheological fantasy, that there is at least one thing we can know. It seems entitled Travels in Oudamovia, John Austin Baker appropriate to describe this truth in the form ofa story. It describes the traveller's reaction to Oudamovian life and is from Helen Waddell's Peter Abelard. Peter, you may worship, which was characterized by a friendly non recall, had been made to suffer a terrible injustice from exploitive relationship with animals: people who had taken the law into their own hands. In Between the Species 110 Summer 1990 The Servant Species: Humanity as Priesthood this passage, Peter is walking close to a wood with his will. But what would have been the use? All friend, Thibault. this,' he stroked the limp body, 'is because of us. But all the time God suffers. More than 'My God,' said Thibault. 'what's that?' we do.' From somewhere near them in the woods Abelard looked at him, perplexed. a cry had arisen, a thin cry, of such intolerable 'Thibault. when did you think of all this?' anguish that Abelard turned dizzy on his feet, Thimult's foce stiffened. 'It was that night,' and caught at the wall. he said, his voice strangled. 'The things we did 'It's a child's voice,' he said. '0 God, are to poor Guibert He -' Thimult stopped. 'I they at a child?' could not sleep for nights and nights. And then 'A rabbit.' said Thibault. He listened. I saw that God suffered too. And I thought that 'There's nothing worrying it It'll be in a trap. I would like to be a priest.' Hugh told me he was putting them down. 'Thibault. do you mean Calvary?' Christ!' The scream came yet again. Thibault shook his head. 'That was only a Abelard was beside him, and the two piece of it - the piece that we saw - in time. plunged down by the bank... '0God', [Abelard] Like that' He JX>inted to a fallen tree beside was muttering. 'Let it die. Let it die quickly.' him, sawn through the middle. 'That dark ring But the cry came yet again. On the right, there, it goes up and down the whole length this time. He plunged through the thicket of the tree. But you only see where it is cut of hornbeam. across. That is what Christ's life was; the bit 'Watch out,' said Thibault, thrusting past of God that we saw. And we think God is like him. 'The trap might take the hand off you.' that. because Christ was like that. kind and The rabbit stopped shrieking when they forgiving sins and healing people. We think stooped over, either from exhaustion, orin some God is like that for ever, because it happened lastextremity offear. Thibault held the teeth of once with Christ But not the pain. Not the the trap apart, andAbelard gathered up the little agony at the last We think that stopped.' creature in his hands.